To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

The Gospel herald. (New Carlisle, Ohio), 1861-04-06

The Gospel herald. (New Carlisle, Ohio), 1861-04-06, page 01

Devoted, to Ohristiaiaii-y, Moi-aliiv. tl-if» Tnio-„ot+.= „r i~;„i-t, i-. i.j -l. i c- . , t ... _ __ _^,1__.:..!.. • ¦a-^i-i'y.^^t«^riAei.efets of h.-il>batli bciiools, booial Improvement, Toirippr.-rnce, IL.lui'alion, tard fif>neval News.
BEHOLD, I BEING TOII GOOD TIDINGS OF OEEAT JOT .... ON EAETH PEACE, GOOD WILL TOWAED MEN."
VOL.-lt.
J)AyTOiV, 0., SATURDAY, APRIL t), KS61
A 0.47.
SEUECT POETRY.
[SEtkOTKO.]
Kansas!!
Hiawatha.
BTA.U. WIDNBT.
' 1.
Hoar, yc dwellers oiithe sea coast 1 Hear, ye dwellers on' tlie prarie I Hear, ye tlwoUorB on tho river.s I , Hoar and answer.—quickly answer— Eear, and rescue starYing ICausius.
2,
Bread, oli bread, for love of Je9ua, Bread for thousandsj starving daily. Bread and clolhiug for our cUildrcu, Bread and olotliirig—):iiead and clothing. Bread aud ulothing, WB are Dyraii I
¦Wo are dying in the snow-drift— 'We are starving iu Uieoabiu,— ¦VVo aro freezingon the prarie— Sadly listening -wili^you answer? ¦VVe are listening—aadly listening—
4.
Weep you may, o'er Hiawatha— Weep you may for Minehaha— l^or tlio dying, Eauging Water— For the starving, weeping hunter. In the land ofthe Dcoota^a.
But \xfireal here—'tis veal— We are starving daily, hourly, Wife and children—do you love them 7 Ours are dying—dying— dying. On the far off Kansas prarics. 0. - -
Listen for the love of .Jesua— Listen though our cry is fee'ble— Listen brother—listen sister— ¦ Listen father—laothor listen To tha cry from starving Kansas.
¦ 7.
Would yor save us from starvation? Would you have tho love of Jesus? Woulil you clothe yourself with blessings ? Send provisions-^send us money— Send IIS clothing—Hkavjsn jnxas you. Auhurn, la., March8th,'<>l.
ORIGINALITIES.
¦WriUen for the QoKpel nerali.
Are the Churches of Christ Indepen¬ dent.
BT MATTHEW GARDNER.
In tho Gospel Herald of M.ai-ch 2nd, 1861, we notice an artidlo, lioadud, "The Church a Higher Pciwer Uuin Conference.—by T. VV. Oraybill." Prom, the Booming contradictory ro- marks of that writer, he aims lo os- tabliah two .points, namely.
lat. That Conference; is a higher
Eowor than the Charch- hence, the hurches aro not independent; but arc, or ou'^ht to be, under, and in subor¬ dination to Conference, in all its aeto, and not object to any.
2nd That Conference is an eclosi- astical tribunal "higher" than the Church to which tribunal, there is the right of appeal,'' from the decision of the Charch;—thus a Court of Ap-
Seals. The fathers of the Christian huroh in the Wesli in their last will and Testament, of tbe Springfield Presbytery, willed that all bodies that were higher than the Church should die, as far as they were connected with them; f.nd willed that they, the Testa¬ tors, should sink into the (indepen¬ dent) body of Christ. Does it not seem, from tho article alluded to, thata body, or Court "higher" than the Church
has arisen from the dead, under the name Conference? A question arises —what is the moaning of thm word, or name—conference? Webster says, '¦The act of conversing on a serious subject, lor tho purpose" of instruction —deliberation. If this definition is correct, how, is it that Conference is metantorphosed into an ecclcHiiistical Court of Judicature^'/ I bi 1 ieve that the writer of this, is the only surviving minister, who belonged to,'and mot iu' the Conference with the first Cliris- tian ministers in tbo Weat. 1 well remember those happy meetings we then enjoyed; "How sweet their mem¬ ory still." I went many miles to got to thom. but was well paid in the blessing received. It was a Confer¬ ence in the true moaning of that term. We harmoniously uonsulted on tho best means to advance the Savior's Kingdom; and all was done with one accord, without an objection; as in tho days ofthe Apostles. No resolutions were passed; the word resolved was not used, because it seoemed too much like law making. We preached, pray¬ ed, sang, worshipped and rejoiced to¬ gether, and parted with new strength aMd brighter prospects. 0 1 what glo¬ rious days were these—never to re¬ turn ?
Now let ua examine that writer's prools and arguments to establish his first point i. e. Conference "higher power" than tho Church, etc. He ad¬ duces Acts. 16,. Chap., the word of Paul, Barnabas, and -others; going from Antioch up to .Jerusalem; and he says it was the first Council, or Corifer en CO, and refers to 2' Chap, (xal., to sustain him. Let it bo . remembered that the Church of Eome, and its num¬ erous ofl'spriug'- offer the same evi dence that ho does, '..o prove, that the Church must be subordinate to that "higher power." Our objections are: Ist. The meeting at Jerusalem is nowhere in the, I^ible called aOoun cil or conference, The passage in G-al. 2 Chai>,, the only place that Con fere nee is mentioned in the Bible; at which Conference Paul seems to think he was not kindly received by some; could not have boon the meeting when he went up from Antioch, for tho A postles, and tho whole Church at Jeru salom, all received him with gladness at that time, and he got all ho asked for. Then is it not more reasonable to sujipose, that Paul alludes to the time he went tO; Jerusalem, Acts 9, 26, when some of the,Apostles wore not willing to receive him ?
2nd. The meeting at Jerusalem was not a delegated body, as is affirmed; for it is carefully stated that the A- postlos, and Elders, with the whole Church, etc., it was done with one ac¬ cord, and not a party majority vote. Acts. 15, 22, 25. Now, is it not plain, that tho Jerusalem meeting proves too much, hence, according to logic, proves nothing for him.
Does not the meeting at Jerusalem prove, as Ohrist and his Apostles taught, and as Church History informs us, namely, that nothing was deter¬ mined, "without the consent ofthe Abt sembly." [See Mosheim's Ecclesiasti¬ cal History, part 2ud, Chap. 2, Sec. 5, 6, and 14; and part 2nd, Chap. 3, Sec. 10.] Can it bo shown, that Christ and his Apostles, ever gave any in¬
structions, or dircc'.ions to Councils, Oouforences, or any thingof that kind ? Not a word of it. AU their directions were to the Church, or Churches, in their independent organizatiiins, which Scripture and Church History abun¬ dantly prove.
Ag.aiu, that writer speaks of "Oon- ference being com posed of the Chur¬ ches," etc. Is this true f Arc two or three persons out ofa Church of two or three hundred members, the Church? , Who can say they are? Does he say, delegates are empower¬ ed ? Where is there any authority in Cod's wo,rd allowing the Churcli to delegate hor power to one, or more perwous, to make a "higher povver," than the Church, to which power, the Church must be in subjection ? Dele¬ gate is not found in the Bible; not¬ withstanding. Christians, iWho say they are a Biblepcople, make so much use ot it. What is its meaning? Web¬ ster says, delegate' "one who is elec¬ ted.to represent a State,, or district in Congress,";etc.i Now, wore Paul and Barnabas and those with them, dele¬ gates fro.m Antioch to Jorusalem ? Who can say they were ? Did tbey take any part in deciding tho case? Will anyone say they did? Then were not Paul, Barnabas and, others, mere ly messengers sent with a request? Is this not plain ? Docs not Mother Rome aud all her progeny, agree very fluently in support of delegate powers ? Is it true, that the Church, or, Chur¬ ches have the liberty to delegate, transfer and dispose of those inherent powers and right .of self government, with which the Great Head of the Church has invested,,them?- . Ha.« Christ given such power? In viewing this subject,I some time ago came to the conclusion, that the Church,ctinnot transfer, or delegate away the power of self government to a "higher pow or;" and I find, by examination, that many learned men who have advoca ted the Independent, or Congregation al form of Church government, have taken the same ground, more,than a hundred years ago. [See Buck im¬ proved by G-. Bush, page 88, 89, 90 91, 92 ] One writer says, "Conference to settle the theological qaeslions;" Why not-make a creed at, once, and have it approved by Conference? We read of one Church which "tried them who said they were Apostles, and .were not, and found them Jiars Rey. 2;2.Ha8 not tbe Church the same power now it had then ? That writer tells us that Conference is a full grown * * * legitimate child" of the Church; and the parents (tho Churobes) must not object to anything ,,this child does; inasmuch as such objections aro "an unmistakable squint towards insubor¬ dination and independence," etc Then the Churches have' lo.'tt their indepen¬ dence, have they, and must.not even "squint towards it?" Does he not claim that this "child" (Conference) is infallible, as^its acts must not be questioned? Would a Eoman Priest claim any more for their "legitimate child," the Pope? iiet us view his sec¬ ond point, to wit: Conference a Court of Appeals, etc. To prove this, he again alludes to Paul, Barnabas and those with them, when they went up to Jerusalem. He -saya they took up an appeal from the Church atAntt-|
och to Conference. Now, are there not Uxo egregious mmtakaa in this? First, the matter was not referred to a Con¬ ference of delegates from Churches, but to^ only one single indopeadent- Church; which was the model of all the primitive Churches, in govern¬ ment, etc. Doubtless the Apostles and Elders were members of the Jerusa¬ lem Churbh—were they not? Second. The difflculty that was in the Antioch Church, that Chureh did not take ac¬ tion upon; fur it legally and jiroperly belonged to the Churcli of Jerusalem; for it was there !0 be investigated, and decided; for those preachers, who troubled this Church at Antioch, teaching, that they must be circnmois- cd; saidthatthe Church of Jerusa¬ lem had sent them, so to teach. Then, how cnuld it be an jtppual,. to send tho case where it originated ? W/io ewer heard of such an appeal'! if men were to go out from one of our Churches, to another, and teaeh things subverting the truth, and say the Church sunt them; could it. be called an appeal to send the matter to the Church, where those men: can:e from? Are not the cases paratlell ? Now if Christiana have a "higher power" than the inde¬ pendent Clturch of Christ, as it is de¬ scribed in ¦ the new Testament, let tliem not protend that their Church Government is Congregational; for the two are antipodes. lam in favor of Conference, in the proper meaning of that term, as Christians first, met in them, i. e. for ^ mutual consultation and edification—to strengthen each other. But when conference is made the place to bring charges, (as I have seen) and a party prepared- before hand to sustain them, while tho pdr- son to be aeoused knows nothing about it, till the charge is presented; seems to me not Christ-like-^ is ii ? Again, if tho charge is iirst brought in Conference, us above, ought there not to be another "higher" Court to ap¬ peal to, aud so on ? 1 was pleased and edified in attending a large, Unita¬ rian Conference in Cincinnati, twoor three years ago. They talked and consulted, but would not pass any resolutions. They are independent— the Church is the "highest power." They with all others, who aro Congre¬ gational in their government, niain- tkin that the highest occlesiastica,! tri¬ bunal npon earth'is''the Chiirch. Quote E-att. 18 Chap., Where Christ directs, that the last appeal must bo made to tho Church, and he says, "whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven." Then are not all Church governments thfit claim a "higher power" than the Church, self constituted, and are'unauthoriz-. ed by the,Lord of Glory bnd 'hiS A* postles? in those United States, thelti are six denominations, that are inde¬ pendent, and congregational initheiu form of Church gbvernment. ' Th^y all maintain, that thejre is 'no authori¬ ty in the Ne w Testament for auyl high¬ er ecclesiastical Court thstn each indi¬ vidual ChuToh, or cQhgregation. If a difficulty and disatiafiiotidn'ta'fcesplaae; they call in help frond dth'er Churebes. Pifst. Baptists of different orders, whose organization is of'raoi'e than two hundred years Standing, and they claim it much farther'back. It is sta¬ ted that the great S'tkesman, Thos. Jefferson, said that lifs first impress.

Devoted, to Ohristiaiaii-y, Moi-aliiv. tl-if» Tnio-„ot+.= „r i~;„i-t, i-. i.j -l. i c- . , t ... _ __ _^,1__.:..!.. • ¦a-^i-i'y.^^t«^riAei.efets of h.-il>batli bciiools, booial Improvement, Toirippr.-rnce, IL.lui'alion, tard fif>neval News.
BEHOLD, I BEING TOII GOOD TIDINGS OF OEEAT JOT .... ON EAETH PEACE, GOOD WILL TOWAED MEN."
VOL.-lt.
J)AyTOiV, 0., SATURDAY, APRIL t), KS61
A 0.47.
SEUECT POETRY.
[SEtkOTKO.]
Kansas!!
Hiawatha.
BTA.U. WIDNBT.
' 1.
Hoar, yc dwellers oiithe sea coast 1 Hear, ye dwellers on' tlie prarie I Hear, ye tlwoUorB on tho river.s I , Hoar and answer.—quickly answer— Eear, and rescue starYing ICausius.
2,
Bread, oli bread, for love of Je9ua, Bread for thousandsj starving daily. Bread and clolhiug for our cUildrcu, Bread and olotliirig—):iiead and clothing. Bread aud ulothing, WB are Dyraii I
¦Wo are dying in the snow-drift— 'We are starving iu Uieoabiu,— ¦VVo aro freezingon the prarie— Sadly listening -wili^you answer? ¦VVe are listening—aadly listening—
4.
Weep you may, o'er Hiawatha— Weep you may for Minehaha— l^or tlio dying, Eauging Water— For the starving, weeping hunter. In the land ofthe Dcoota^a.
But \xfireal here—'tis veal— We are starving daily, hourly, Wife and children—do you love them 7 Ours are dying—dying— dying. On the far off Kansas prarics. 0. - -
Listen for the love of .Jesua— Listen though our cry is fee'ble— Listen brother—listen sister— ¦ Listen father—laothor listen To tha cry from starving Kansas.
¦ 7.
Would yor save us from starvation? Would you have tho love of Jesus? Woulil you clothe yourself with blessings ? Send provisions-^send us money— Send IIS clothing—Hkavjsn jnxas you. Auhurn, la., March8th,'<>l.
ORIGINALITIES.
¦WriUen for the QoKpel nerali.
Are the Churches of Christ Indepen¬ dent.
BT MATTHEW GARDNER.
In tho Gospel Herald of M.ai-ch 2nd, 1861, we notice an artidlo, lioadud, "The Church a Higher Pciwer Uuin Conference.—by T. VV. Oraybill." Prom, the Booming contradictory ro- marks of that writer, he aims lo os- tabliah two .points, namely.
lat. That Conference; is a higher
Eowor than the Charch- hence, the hurches aro not independent; but arc, or ou'^ht to be, under, and in subor¬ dination to Conference, in all its aeto, and not object to any.
2nd That Conference is an eclosi- astical tribunal "higher" than the Church to which tribunal, there is the right of appeal,'' from the decision of the Charch;—thus a Court of Ap-
Seals. The fathers of the Christian huroh in the Wesli in their last will and Testament, of tbe Springfield Presbytery, willed that all bodies that were higher than the Church should die, as far as they were connected with them; f.nd willed that they, the Testa¬ tors, should sink into the (indepen¬ dent) body of Christ. Does it not seem, from tho article alluded to, thata body, or Court "higher" than the Church
has arisen from the dead, under the name Conference? A question arises —what is the moaning of thm word, or name—conference? Webster says, '¦The act of conversing on a serious subject, lor tho purpose" of instruction —deliberation. If this definition is correct, how, is it that Conference is metantorphosed into an ecclcHiiistical Court of Judicature^'/ I bi 1 ieve that the writer of this, is the only surviving minister, who belonged to,'and mot iu' the Conference with the first Cliris- tian ministers in tbo Weat. 1 well remember those happy meetings we then enjoyed; "How sweet their mem¬ ory still." I went many miles to got to thom. but was well paid in the blessing received. It was a Confer¬ ence in the true moaning of that term. We harmoniously uonsulted on tho best means to advance the Savior's Kingdom; and all was done with one accord, without an objection; as in tho days ofthe Apostles. No resolutions were passed; the word resolved was not used, because it seoemed too much like law making. We preached, pray¬ ed, sang, worshipped and rejoiced to¬ gether, and parted with new strength aMd brighter prospects. 0 1 what glo¬ rious days were these—never to re¬ turn ?
Now let ua examine that writer's prools and arguments to establish his first point i. e. Conference "higher power" than tho Church, etc. He ad¬ duces Acts. 16,. Chap., the word of Paul, Barnabas, and -others; going from Antioch up to .Jerusalem; and he says it was the first Council, or Corifer en CO, and refers to 2' Chap, (xal., to sustain him. Let it bo . remembered that the Church of Eome, and its num¬ erous ofl'spriug'- offer the same evi dence that ho does, '..o prove, that the Church must be subordinate to that "higher power." Our objections are: Ist. The meeting at Jerusalem is nowhere in the, I^ible called aOoun cil or conference, The passage in G-al. 2 Chai>,, the only place that Con fere nee is mentioned in the Bible; at which Conference Paul seems to think he was not kindly received by some; could not have boon the meeting when he went up from Antioch, for tho A postles, and tho whole Church at Jeru salom, all received him with gladness at that time, and he got all ho asked for. Then is it not more reasonable to sujipose, that Paul alludes to the time he went tO; Jerusalem, Acts 9, 26, when some of the,Apostles wore not willing to receive him ?
2nd. The meeting at Jerusalem was not a delegated body, as is affirmed; for it is carefully stated that the A- postlos, and Elders, with the whole Church, etc., it was done with one ac¬ cord, and not a party majority vote. Acts. 15, 22, 25. Now, is it not plain, that tho Jerusalem meeting proves too much, hence, according to logic, proves nothing for him.
Does not the meeting at Jerusalem prove, as Ohrist and his Apostles taught, and as Church History informs us, namely, that nothing was deter¬ mined, "without the consent ofthe Abt sembly." [See Mosheim's Ecclesiasti¬ cal History, part 2ud, Chap. 2, Sec. 5, 6, and 14; and part 2nd, Chap. 3, Sec. 10.] Can it bo shown, that Christ and his Apostles, ever gave any in¬
structions, or dircc'.ions to Councils, Oouforences, or any thingof that kind ? Not a word of it. AU their directions were to the Church, or Churches, in their independent organizatiiins, which Scripture and Church History abun¬ dantly prove.
Ag.aiu, that writer speaks of "Oon- ference being com posed of the Chur¬ ches," etc. Is this true f Arc two or three persons out ofa Church of two or three hundred members, the Church? , Who can say they are? Does he say, delegates are empower¬ ed ? Where is there any authority in Cod's wo,rd allowing the Churcli to delegate hor power to one, or more perwous, to make a "higher povver," than the Church, to which power, the Church must be in subjection ? Dele¬ gate is not found in the Bible; not¬ withstanding. Christians, iWho say they are a Biblepcople, make so much use ot it. What is its meaning? Web¬ ster says, delegate' "one who is elec¬ ted.to represent a State,, or district in Congress,";etc.i Now, wore Paul and Barnabas and those with them, dele¬ gates fro.m Antioch to Jorusalem ? Who can say they were ? Did tbey take any part in deciding tho case? Will anyone say they did? Then were not Paul, Barnabas and, others, mere ly messengers sent with a request? Is this not plain ? Docs not Mother Rome aud all her progeny, agree very fluently in support of delegate powers ? Is it true, that the Church, or, Chur¬ ches have the liberty to delegate, transfer and dispose of those inherent powers and right .of self government, with which the Great Head of the Church has invested,,them?- . Ha.« Christ given such power? In viewing this subject,I some time ago came to the conclusion, that the Church,ctinnot transfer, or delegate away the power of self government to a "higher pow or;" and I find, by examination, that many learned men who have advoca ted the Independent, or Congregation al form of Church government, have taken the same ground, more,than a hundred years ago. [See Buck im¬ proved by G-. Bush, page 88, 89, 90 91, 92 ] One writer says, "Conference to settle the theological qaeslions;" Why not-make a creed at, once, and have it approved by Conference? We read of one Church which "tried them who said they were Apostles, and .were not, and found them Jiars Rey. 2;2.Ha8 not tbe Church the same power now it had then ? That writer tells us that Conference is a full grown * * * legitimate child" of the Church; and the parents (tho Churobes) must not object to anything ,,this child does; inasmuch as such objections aro "an unmistakable squint towards insubor¬ dination and independence," etc Then the Churches have' lo.'tt their indepen¬ dence, have they, and must.not even "squint towards it?" Does he not claim that this "child" (Conference) is infallible, as^its acts must not be questioned? Would a Eoman Priest claim any more for their "legitimate child," the Pope? iiet us view his sec¬ ond point, to wit: Conference a Court of Appeals, etc. To prove this, he again alludes to Paul, Barnabas and those with them, when they went up to Jerusalem. He -saya they took up an appeal from the Church atAntt-|
och to Conference. Now, are there not Uxo egregious mmtakaa in this? First, the matter was not referred to a Con¬ ference of delegates from Churches, but to^ only one single indopeadent- Church; which was the model of all the primitive Churches, in govern¬ ment, etc. Doubtless the Apostles and Elders were members of the Jerusa¬ lem Churbh—were they not? Second. The difflculty that was in the Antioch Church, that Chureh did not take ac¬ tion upon; fur it legally and jiroperly belonged to the Churcli of Jerusalem; for it was there !0 be investigated, and decided; for those preachers, who troubled this Church at Antioch, teaching, that they must be circnmois- cd; saidthatthe Church of Jerusa¬ lem had sent them, so to teach. Then, how cnuld it be an jtppual,. to send tho case where it originated ? W/io ewer heard of such an appeal'! if men were to go out from one of our Churches, to another, and teaeh things subverting the truth, and say the Church sunt them; could it. be called an appeal to send the matter to the Church, where those men: can:e from? Are not the cases paratlell ? Now if Christiana have a "higher power" than the inde¬ pendent Clturch of Christ, as it is de¬ scribed in ¦ the new Testament, let tliem not protend that their Church Government is Congregational; for the two are antipodes. lam in favor of Conference, in the proper meaning of that term, as Christians first, met in them, i. e. for ^ mutual consultation and edification—to strengthen each other. But when conference is made the place to bring charges, (as I have seen) and a party prepared- before hand to sustain them, while tho pdr- son to be aeoused knows nothing about it, till the charge is presented; seems to me not Christ-like-^ is ii ? Again, if tho charge is iirst brought in Conference, us above, ought there not to be another "higher" Court to ap¬ peal to, aud so on ? 1 was pleased and edified in attending a large, Unita¬ rian Conference in Cincinnati, twoor three years ago. They talked and consulted, but would not pass any resolutions. They are independent— the Church is the "highest power." They with all others, who aro Congre¬ gational in their government, niain- tkin that the highest occlesiastica,! tri¬ bunal npon earth'is''the Chiirch. Quote E-att. 18 Chap., Where Christ directs, that the last appeal must bo made to tho Church, and he says, "whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven." Then are not all Church governments thfit claim a "higher power" than the Church, self constituted, and are'unauthoriz-. ed by the,Lord of Glory bnd 'hiS A* postles? in those United States, thelti are six denominations, that are inde¬ pendent, and congregational initheiu form of Church gbvernment. ' Th^y all maintain, that thejre is 'no authori¬ ty in the Ne w Testament for auyl high¬ er ecclesiastical Court thstn each indi¬ vidual ChuToh, or cQhgregation. If a difficulty and disatiafiiotidn'ta'fcesplaae; they call in help frond dth'er Churebes. Pifst. Baptists of different orders, whose organization is of'raoi'e than two hundred years Standing, and they claim it much farther'back. It is sta¬ ted that the great S'tkesman, Thos. Jefferson, said that lifs first impress.